New CBB

If you want to be something you're not, you need to take steps to achieve it, in many cases.


Statistics should not be about people. In politics, you don't need to make statistics, you can actually ask them what they want, i.e. direct democracy. But politicians fear direct democracy, because it's the only true democracy.

Statistics should not be enforced over people against their will. If somebody don't like to participate in statistics, that must be respected in every case. There mustn't be punishment.

Statistics is well applied upon unsentinent phenomena, as is radioactitity or other inanimate phenomena from nature or technology.

Beings with own will don't behave according to a statistical distribution, even if some people believe that or try to make us believe that. Beings with own will behave according to their own will and according to a certain purpose or likes or dislikes. Or they are forced to behave in a certain way. So, if you do a statistic, and they're forced to behave against their will, you will draw the wrong conclusions. A sentient being can even decide to do even things it dislikes for some reasons. So applying statistics will be very misleading and reduces a sentient being to a statistical process, which is insultant. And it doesn't help to decide about a useful solution to whatever problem.

In textbooks of statistics, you find tasks where they say ''... can be seen as whatever-distributed ...'', but they don't say why it can be seen that way.


Yes, of course. But then, how often are there statistics in human related studies where the sample pool is relatively small? And they draw conclusions from that, anyway! This is exactly what I complain about.

Some years ago, as there was the threat that terrorists will use pox, and they planned to vaccinate huge parts of the population, I read that decades ago, they concluded that that vaccination must be done very early, i.e as a baby, because of four or five cases of complications. In that recent text, they acknowledged that that may be wrong because of the small size of the sample.

If e.g. a big pharma company tests its products which they have an interest to market, they very often drop unfitting results. For that reason, you never can be sure that you can actually conclude something form that statistics at all. As that ''medicaments'' are copyrighted most likely and as normal people can't do tests by themselves, nobody can proof that statistics wrong. So statistics are a good means to disguise unfitting and even harmful results. And you will hardly be able to proof that such a ''medicament'' caused your health problems.

There once was an US president who claimed that he only will believe in a statistic if he had faked it by himself.

Statistics is just playing around with numbers. Numbers must be interpreted, and certain people use statistics to backup their interpretation of numbers, especially in politics and social sciences, to achieve their goals.


How can you know what a country's population needs?


Would you call that a free country? You are obliged to do or take part in so many things!


How can I know? But there are some for sure, otherwise they wouldn't do the effort to ask. And if they have that number, they get the exclusive right to interpret it for whatever purpose.


???


So you actually know what supermarkets/shops I'm talking about? I don't see that these types of T-shirts are that popular. They're just laying on the tables and don't get bought.


There are not that much T-shirts with slogans. And I surely wouldn't buy one if I don't like the slogan. If enough people don't but them, they go on laying around on their tables until they're sold. At least that's my impression.


Yes, I usually buy the white ones, too. But these are more underwear and not real T-shirts. I know about those websites, but I'm in a situation where I can't effort to do that kind of stuff or simply to dye it.


In the next few lines I've told you that I actually meant that I don't get white underwear of my favorite brand or at least of a brand where the underwear is the way I like it.


Sorry, that's not fair. There're sales assistents to serve you. It would be the easiest way for both sides if they'd pass their experiences with their custormers to the head office. Why do they require me to send a letter or e-mail to the head office which most likely didn't get read anyways? Don't they like to serve their customers well? Supposedly, the customer 's king! Ok, we've dropped monarchy for a while, now.

I once was told by a sales person that he already complained at the head office because of the same thing I complained at him, but that they ignored his proposals, too. So, from my experiences, they're ignoring every feedback form their customers. Buy it or leave it! They don't need statistics!


Things are not that easy! I had to learn that, too.


What are you talking about?


If you don't participate in a census, you need to conform, if you don't want to get punished. That's why I told that in fashion, being conform is harmless.


Sure? Most mutations are letal, I think, maybe don't do any harm for some reasons, e.g. if the affected area is ''commented out'', see C-value paradox. And concerning evolution, there cannot be deviations from the norm, as there is no norm. Norm is what the human observer defines or interpretes into it.


We don't talk about fulfilling every individuals special wishes here. We talk about offering cheep and usable clothes.


I told you that many of that ''witty'' slogans aren't that witty at all. They're just stupid. I don't need a slogan on my T-shirt. If something I like happens to be popular, why not?


Lucky you! I only wanted to show you the mechanism how the ''norm'' or the ''majority'' is used to manipulate you. First you define a (behavioural) ''norm'', a standard, maybe by means of statistics, then you refer to it to press e.g. children to comply to that norm. There are much nastier mechanisms to achieve that, of course. And of course, not every norm or standard must be bad.


If you get told something, you won't accept it, most likely. You just would fight my claim. So better you experience it by your own. And for someone interested in languages, googling for some words shouldn't be that hard or tedious.


It is not a ''proof'', but a hint! Of course, anything can be twisted, but you need not invite said evil nuts to spoil our lives and freedom. Freedom is usually lost step by step, so that people don't realize it. The way you argue is not very fair here. Cars, the internet, or kitchen knives etc. are different things, having special dangers each. I want to point out the special dangers of statistics. I already acknowleded that there are or could be some benefits, if you apply it approbriate, as everything. And I've pointed out the limits.


Did zelos get useful answers? He titled this thread ''Mathematical Model for Conworlds''. This is very general and a bit ... not that much thought about. What kind of answer do you think he expect? One little ''world formula'' which explains all and everything? Does he like to summon Laplace's demon?




Obviously, these morons were professional economists.


Yes, zelos wants to refine his conworld. But the way he wants to do that seems pointless to me.


I didn't use my computer to find a statistic. But I wonder where he gets his statistical data from. It's a conworld, so how does he get the data he needs to feed up the formula?


Ok.


Sure? Floating power supply can cause errors or crashes, radioactivity can cause a bit to toggle, overclocking can cause errors. Testing a modern processor chip is a very tedious action, you will never be able to do it completely in a reasonable period of time. Ever heard from the FDIV bug? Besides the errors caused by human programmers, designing a computer is a very complex process, so you should expect that there are errors in the computer hardware as well.


No, using that machinery to ''make it more realistic'' is the fraud. Then it's better to consult a clairvoyant because everybody knows that's a fraud.


This presupposes that the equations for modelling of conworlds are valid in principle, then you can refine. But I doubt that such equations exist. You can use some equations, but that most likely only pretends a scientific approach, as they can't be applied because of the complexity of the task.

He might select two species and try to carefully modell their relations based on that predator/prey equations, but then he should have titled that thread somewhat more fittingly. But asking for a mathematical model for conworlds ...

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Zelos! I have statistic for you!!

This was gleaned from mathematicians studying at least US cities, I think. But they probably looked at cities worldwide.

What they found was that if you look at one city, with a given size (area and population); then you look at another city, this time twice the size (area and population) then the averages of things like wages, social activity and so on and on (lots of things, most of the stuff in the city) went up by 15%. So, basically, the average quality of life in a city rises by fifteen percent if you double the size of the city. Doesn't mean they are happier though.

Which means, obviously, that in the larger city there is a greater proportion of people earning more, etc, than in the smaller city. You would assume the average would remain the same, but no, it rises.

Why don't you show us the whole picture? What's about poverty, accidents, cost of goods etc., violence and other criminal activities, environmental pollution? I would expect that these increases if the city increases, too, and surely does not contribute to the average quality of life. Who is happy in Western societies?

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Sorry, yes, I do not have the whole picture: However, the person giving the information implied that the whole of human activity rose by this same figure. I do not think this extends as far as cost of goods, as that is not a human activity, being a rather less than direct result of that particular city's population. So yes, I expect the number of rich people, the amount of poverty, the violence, the crime, the accidents... The percent all goes up with the good stuff. But it does mean that though you may have fifteen percent more poverty, the average wage per person is still fifteen percent higher than it was. Which usually means that the rich get richer, but not always.

Yes, this statistic can be misused, and probably I have misinterpreted part of it; it still provides a good guideline for a fictional world. You can even change it, because what you have is fiction, and the mass behavioural effect might manifest itself differently. The important thing is though that if you double the size of the city, that does not evenly multiply everything so the average maintains the same.

Who is happy in Western society? Very few indeed.

People are happy or unhappy only by contrast.
Half the pleasure in life comes from solving problems.
Trouble is necessary for tranquility (and vice versa); unhappiness is necessary for happiness (and vice versa); etc.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

MyghternTighrijd, you've not provided a statistic, but only a number. You've not even specified what is meant with ''the averages of things like wages, social activity and so on and on (lots of things, most of the stuff in the city)'' and ''basically, the average quality of life in a city''. You not even provide the name of the one producing the statistic or where it got published. So, this is pointless or a vague claim at best.

What is considered the ''basic quality of life''? Why shouldn't that be correlated with happyness? And I don't think you can generalize from American cities to cities all over the world, especially not to cities in poor countries.

The higher the cost of goods, the more active you must be for being able to afford them. If there aren't jobs, you cannot earn the money needed. Activity may be in vain. Usually, the bigger the city, the more costly is living there, unless you belong to the ''lowest layer'' of the population, responsible for some kinds of criminality. If the negative sides ''goes all up with the good stuff'', then the increase of ''the good stuff'' is evened out. Then, if someone still claims that there is an increase of the good stuff, it is manipulation.

Of course, there might be a disproportional increase, but the point is, that a simple number cannot really describe things like ''quality of life'', because that depends on how a certain being sees his life or what he considers important. That's why I think that statistics done on human beings to describe human behaviour is unscientific and wrong. You always can produce numbers, but these do not describe anything unless you believe in it.

No, it doesn't provide a guideline for a fictional world. A fictional world might or shall be different in many aspects -- honestly, you invented that world to be different most likely --, and the author of such a world should be aware that these differences affect all and everything in his world. So, it's his task to work out how the fictional world will be different in the first place. The only thing he can do is comparing with our world: unlike what would be expected form our world, in that (fictional) world, it was different for some reasons (specify the reasons here). For that, numbers aren't needed at all.

''the mass behavioural effect''

This is a very constructed term. As a sentient being, you always have the choice to behave differently. Don't believe everything in paedagogical, sociological or psychological textbooks.


You need to experience being unhappy to appreciate being happy.


Depends on the problems, some of them can't be solved in general, or by a certain individual.


There can be tranquility without being trouble (and vice versa), you can be happy without knowing to be happy; if the same holds with unhappiness, I don't know. Most likely not.

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

*sigh* But now he knows to increase a few things by 15% for each doubling of city size. It's just detail.
Why do you insist on making this a moral question?

And happiness is clearly relative or you wouldn't feel the need to argue that point...

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

It's his conworld mixed up with a -- probably wrong -- detail form real world. He could use other figures as well.

I make this a ''moral question'' because I'm aware of the fact that people want to manipulate other people for various reasons. Statistics is one means to do that. Another reason is that you or zelos want that to ''add reality'' to conworlds and I don't see the ''reality'' when there are that many obvious points why you should question the validity of statistics in general. I want to make you aware of that reasons why you shouldn't trust statistics. You try to apply scientfic methods without considering their limits.


Relative to what?

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

No, bored now, sorry. IT IS FICTION. You are right: I only supplied one number. That was the point. It was supposed to be some seemingly all present figure that cropped up in the averages of all the human activity that this study looked at. You cannot map accurately everything to do with humans, you are right. But for the sake of ease and efficiency, you are permitted to generalise to look at the greater picture. That is where statistics come in: A flawed, generalised guideline to which the details can be accurately added as and when necessary. It is not accurate. It is not accurate. It really isn't. We know. The fact is that it is a fictional world, and we can take a look at some real-world numbers and use it as a jumping off point. I don't have time to map the rise and fall of the cost of goods, and I wouldn't want to anyway. So I look at a statistic, and if it makes sense, seems logical, I can say "Well, in my world..." So that I can pretend that is is real, because it seems sensible. Not accurate, sensible.

I thank you for ensuring that we are fully aware that what we are doing is flawed. I do not, however, feel inclined to continue to debate the finer details this with you at this time, in this manner.

What I mean is election. This has something to do with statistics, of course, but is different in that you aren't obliged to participate, usually. And that it has effects more or less: another party will take over government, sometimes. Which does not mean that they are better or change politics, by the way.


If half the citizens are too lazy to answer, so why do they produce a census at all? Statistics are to deduce from some samples to a greater whole. Therefore you need not oblige the whole population to participate.


They behave according to their own will or to the will of somebody else if manipulated or forced into it. This is quite obvious. Otherwise, proof your claim that they behave according to a statistical distribution. Which one? Gauss, student-T? And what does mean ''reflect'' here?


The exemple I gave was about possible obligatory vaccinations of huge portions of the population against pox. Form vaccination data form the time before vaccination was stopped because the world was declared pox-free by the WHO, they, back then, deduced that the first vaccination should be very early because of a few cases of complications. The data did not say that it killed everyone, and the data pool was not tiny, obviously.

Mandatory vaccination

In some countries are or had been mandatory vaccinations, especially against pox. If you join the army, you need to get vaccinated against whatever. Surely depends on the country and the army. If you want to visit certain countries, you need mandatory vaccination, too.

I would accept using statistics in pathology, but with caution, of course.

You know that there are ''medicaments'' where they warn you that it can cause sudden death, besides other nasty things? These ''medicaments'' are marketed by use of ''tweaked'' statistics. And they earn really much money with it!


Really not. If there are other brands selling the same stuff, they either do it by licence or because they're form east-asia and don't need to obey western copyright standards. If patent ceases, they rename the same drug and market it for another ''illness''.


Ok, checked out the internet, it is a quote maybe wrongly attributed to Winston Churchill. But this doesn't mean that there is no tweaking of statistics.


Yes, but statistics makes it look more ''scientific''.


Why not just a referendum, if it is a political question, or just the market, if it is concerning goods? And why do you need obliged participation if it would suffice when only some part of it would participate, because of that feature of statistics that they allow deduction because people behave according to a given distribution?


Sorry, what do you mean by that?


And what do you think they will do if they find out this way that there are too many houses, or too small ones? Or that there aren't enough? Maybe then you'll obliged to tear yours down, or they come with some machine, focus yours and make it 10 percent bigger, so that you have to clean more. Or they give you the money to build a new one? Sorry, Lodhas, that's what market is for. And a state has other and cheeper means to more precisely find out about that.


What you refer to is economics for beginners. You learn that in school, but real life is somewhat different.


I once worked in some kind of supermarket. I put the prices the goods, besides others. The price a supermarked buys a good is much, much lower than the price it sells it. So they make profit in every case. They also got clothes for cheep reselling.


They ask you about your religion. They already know that from registration. BTW, in western countries, your religion is a private thingy. Why do they intrude in my privacy? They ask you about your gender. What's the norm there? They ask you about your way to school, university or working place. Sorry, back then, I used bus, train and even tramping a lot, depending on chance. What shall I answer? They asked you about the brand of your television. Weird, isn't it? And in a very early census -- I've got that from the Internet --, they wanted to ask some say ... somewhat sex related question, but that was dropped by parliament back then.

In some census-related Wiki, they claimed that in my country, they ask more then other countries do when performing a census.

And you can do lots of things when you have the data. In my country, every census sheet must be personalized (or at least the enveloppe). They say that it will be anonymized before feeding it, but why shall I trust? And even after being anonymized, it is very easy to repersonalize it if you answered correctly and have some data already, as is registration data. And even if you didn't answer correctly, you can find that out be counter-checking it to previous databases. So you find out who lied. And in census-fighing media, they told that they can use census data to find out about city quaters where people with certain -- opposing or complient -- political opinions live. This can be used to find the optimal places to build e.g. nuclear power plants. Right wing population is considered to accept that more then left wing population.


What do you think a ''mutant'' is? We're talking about biology, not about science fiction or Teenage mutant hero turtles. If egg or sperma cells have severe damage by e.g. heat or radioacitvity or chemicals, there will be no conception or the new life will die short after conception. It will be very hard to make statistics about that after all. Ok, you need non-lethal mutation for evolution, but nature has produced other means to mix up genetic information to make life adaptable to new environments etc. You have dominant and recessive genes. If the genome from of one of your parents has a dominant gene, but the other has a recessive, you'll feature the dominant gene, if both have the recessive feature, you'll express that. So it's not just mutation. So if a defect by radiation sits on a recessive gene, you have the defect, but maybe you don't express it, but maybe your child will. And, your cells also have at least one mechanism to repare harmed genes.


That's essentially the mindset I fight here.

Normality can also be that what's set as a norm, regardless what the individuals may think! If you're a child, you have to attend school. If you would make a statistic, the ''norm'' would be that the group of the pupils/students don't like to attend school and rather doing something else instead.

There are at least two kinds of groups: Groups formed by the free will of every member to participate and groups built up by force or unknowingly by someone doing statistics, so that the member of that group never had a choice to tell if he likes to participate or not. But even in the first case, e.g. conlangers participating in a collaborative conlang creation thread, there will be deviating opinions on the phonology and everything. You can take the proposed phonemes choosen by the majority, and the ones who's proposals weren't used probably leave ...

If they make up groups without the knowledge of the people, then, acutally, there is no group. They grouped them. They try to deduce something form the artificial group they made up. If the result isn't the way they like or need for their employer, they can widen or narrowing down the groups, respectively.

You have a black hat and put a white mouse into it, saying ''Hokuspokus'' and then taking out a white bunny.

You have some computer, putting in some figures gathered from individual persons, milling it through some sort of program, and voilà, there is the group interest!


Never become an engineer! If to design a product, at least me would do it in a way that it isn't dangerous, is applicable and looks pretty, besides other constraints. I think this will always succeed. For looking pretty, there are some design rules and considerations of taste. Nowardays, products aren't designed like that anymore, obviously. So, how your product will look like highly depends on constraints given by the money available and the law.


And what if the members of that group change their minds?


I'm not a linguist. It was essentially one sentence. You somewhat miss my point.


Classical mechanics -- outdated?

If you use statistics, you're algorithmic as well.


Have I said that these guys are idiots? In economics, you have producers = factories, companies as well as consuments = clients. In biology, you have producers = microbes, plants, animals; and consuments = predators, microbes; so it is actually quite witty to try to employ the same equations in both fields. Thing is, that these equations are too coase to describe very complex systems interacting with each other. That's why I don't recommend zelos to go this way to ''add realism'' to his conworld. Too simple is unrealistic, realistic is way too complex, being a bit realistic is neither fish nor flesh, if it is to be achieved by applying real world statistics or similar.


What is conworlding? Doing a planet or parts of a planet like Slartibartfast?

If you write a (SF, Fantasy) novel, you want to make a planet fitting in that story. Adding realism here means to work it out in some story details which are common to take place in that world. You don't need figures at all for that. If conworlding is done for such a novel, then it isn't pointless. If you want just ''simulate'' a whole planet with its ecology and economy, than ... forget it.


I pointed out that this does not make that much sense, at least not if he want to be ''realistic'' We hardly know our own planet in all its details, how can we know what is ''realistic'' in general in our universe?


But, how can you be sure that the thing is perfect? Even if the design is correct or perfect, the producing process may not, resulting in random errors.


... yeah, because modern computers use branch prediction!

Seriously, a computer gets predictions correct? Even branch prediction can fail!


...

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

Your vote is a statistic whether you are obliged to vote or not. Without compiling this data one can't determine who won the elction: they are integral to the system!

Who decides which government was better at their job if statistics aren't used to measure employment levels, pollution, income etc.?



...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what, I'm done with this; continue believing that laws and numbers are evil if you wish, we're just cluttering the thread.

By the way, could you at least put your posts in spoilers so they don't take up a full page each?

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

A vote is just that: a vote, regardless who voted. You can make a statistic form all of the votes in an election by assigning the parties to the votes, respectively. The point is, that nobody is allowed to vote for you and you are not obliged to vote at all, but if you vote, nobody is allowed to see for which party you vote. You also can go to the election cabin, but actually vote for non or more than one of the candiates/parties, which means that your vote is invalid.

So, in the result, you have the list of canditates/parties, invalid votes and the percentage of the people in voting age who actually voted. It is not desired, nor it is possible to repersonalize your vote! If that would be possible, the entire election would be considered invalid, because it wouldn't fulfill one major prerequisite for an election in a true democracy: to be secret. Census is not like that, because you have to put your name on the sheet, and it is in principle possible to repersonalize you. This is not possible in an election as you only vote for a canditate or a party, but aren't required to put any personal data on the sheet. This would make the sheet invalid, I think. After the election, the votes are counted in the presence of all parties, so that it would be obvious if some party would cheet.

You even can ask electors on how they will vote/have voted and gather more information of that voter as gender, age, profession, voting in previous elections. This is often done to make statistics about the movement of certain groups of voters form one party to another. But, nobody is obliged to accept such an interview, nor is he/she obliged to give his name etc. or to tell the truth about how he or she actually voted.

So voting is actually quite different from a census.


For these statistics, you don't need a census. This can be done by the normal data without performing a census.


I don't believe that laws and numbers are evil, but there are lots of bad laws, and you can use statistics to cheet the public and manipulate political decisions. You don't seem to be aware of that.

My posts aren't spoilers!

Lodhas, it takes me lots of time to answer you, and I try to answer you and zelos as best as I can. I was the one who brought up the predator/prey formulas, even so they are generally known, which are the only thing I know to exist which comes close to what zelos asked. And I gave him the hint to read books on biological statistics, where there will be lots of exemples he could take. (If these exemples make much sense is another question.) There will be lots of reference to further literature. And I gave the hint that what he tries to do might not make that much sense at all, as there is too much complexity. He only generally asked for a mathematical model [singular!] for conworlds [plural!], which seems very problematic. It would be easier to take a ''divide and conquer'' approach and ask for forumlas for one well specified conworld. If somebody would have given just some formulas without discussion if they make sense, than, this would be unfair and really below the niveau I normally expect in a decent forum.

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

Tanni,

The wording of his post may be misleading but he has clarified his intention.
He is attempting to minimise the potential inaccuracies of his conworlds and is entirley aware his system won't be perfect.

My argument with you is regarding the ethical and practical concerns of compiling and utilising data (I might point out that much of my education is in the realms of engineering if that gives any insight into my views); I can see we are not going to agree on this and I find repeating myself frustrating so let's just drop it, ok?

Your posts may not be spoilers but they are very long and putting them in spoilers means they won't clutter up the thread (I've done the same thing to mine) and will make reading it much less cumbersome.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

Yes, I'm aware of that. For me, it is not a question of being perfect. It is clear that we cannot be perfect in this field.


If engineering is e.g. constructing machines, then it's ok, no problems. If by engineering, you mean ''social engineering'', then, that's what I'm against. What I try to say is that as good statistics are in ''classical'' engineering, in nature science or in certain fields of biology and pathology, as problematic it will get if you apply them in social fields. (I'd gave you some hints on that, but you didn't seem to recognize them.) This is something important, and the problems are not obvious, and therefore we should discuss about it, so why not here.

For me, sites like CBB should much more discuss these kind of general problems instead of taking lots of things for granted, e.g. that one can apply statistics to all and everything. There may be limits.


I did get that, but then, you misuse the spoiler tag, which is to hide away information on books, films, etc. which could spoil the pleasure of those who not yet have read or seen it.


http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg

_________________
My neurochemistry has fucked my impulse control, now I'm diagnosed OOD = oppositional opinion disorder, one of the most deadly diseases in former soviet union, but can be cured in the free world.

IMO, the US Census, at least, is flawed. But not because of the obligation. I just think they could get the necessary information more economically (and possibly more accurately in some cases) by using a statistical sample, rather than attempting to count every single resident. The Census does use statistical samples for some things, but having worked as a door-to-door Census worker, there seems to be a lot of wasted effort tracking people down and visiting homes multiple times during the main count.

_________________
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast

Oh, but thou must!

_________________
Svo hvernig get ég annað en glott á þig dauðlega?